Judicial stumping rooted in Tennessee Constitution

From the bench to the campaign trail, the debate over whether it is appropriate to make judicial candidates vie for votes extends beyond Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey’s recent campaign to unseat three Tennessee Supreme Court justices.

The political nature of Ramsey’s crusade has polarized opinions on judicial campaigns. But all politics aside, I think we need to be wary of viewing judicial stumping as undermining the honor and honesty of our state’s justice system.

While voters have not directly elected Supreme Court justices since 1994, when the Tennessee Plan took effect, the Tennessee Constitution clearly states that judges shall be elected by the qualified voters of the state. In fact, before the simple yes/no retention ballot was enacted, it was routine to see our Supreme Court justices out on the campaign trail convincing constituents of their abilities and aptitude to preserve justice.

Though the Supreme Court and appellate court election process may be considered a formality by some, judges know when they take the bench that they will stand for re-election in eight years. A necessary part of our judicial system, it has served Tennesseans well.

When judges take their oath of office, they hold themselves accountable to the public, and elections are the purest form of that accountability. However, the campaigning necessitated in “real” elections raises valid questions.

One such concern is the influence that campaign donors might play in courtroom decisions. Some feel money may “buy” judges and influence decisions. In my 27 years of practicing law in this state, I have never witnessed this prejudice. However, elections allow citizens to minimize this threat by removing judges who are misusing their position or who, by their actions, show that they lack the temperament necessary for the position. Currently, the only method to remove a judge (other than by vote) is by impeachment.

Another question is whether the public is qualified to decide the merits of a judge. I have seen a wide range in the effectiveness of judges who have been elected and those selected through appointment. There always exists a possibility that people who are less qualified will be elected, but elections maintain the integrity of our democracy.

Judges make important decisions that have the potential to impact any Tennessean. While we should always avoid politicizing a judicial campaign, we shouldn’t also bury the importance of a real election in the judicial branch of government.

It is incumbent upon the legal community to better educate the public about the judicial branch and encourage transparency of judicial caseloads, decisions and opinions. To the extent that statistics provide fair information regarding judges, those statistics should be provided to the voting public and the judges should be permitted to address those facts fairly and honestly.

I had the privilege of working for Justice William H.D. Fones of the Tennessee Supreme Court immediately following law school in 1987, when the court was elected by popular vote. From my experience, Justice Fones and his colleagues were intelligent, competent and honorable individuals. If history is any guide, the men and women who Tennesseans elect as judges will be as competent and honorable. If not, the electorate will remove them at the next election.

Keith Dennen is a member attorney with the Nashville office of Dickinson Wright PLLC. Reach him at KDennen@dickinsonwright.com.